All pools that got pushed into surplus were sub $100k TL already.
But yes, there is a trade-off. And who’s to say this prop wasn’t the reason for the rush to acquire BNT off CEX?
4 Likes
Of course, it goes both ways in that case.
I don’t think everything we have been doing as a community and team was the reason for an increase in BNT price like this, but instead other forces out of our control.
Pools like WBTC and ETH are far too deep in deficit to probably ever recover at this point.
Considering this recent increase was an outlier, we would need such an outlier x3 more times.
If Carbon is our way of answering the AMM inefficiency, we should do whatever we can to have lps decide to migrate to it. Can always choose to keep lp funds like this and allow lps to decide to enter Carbon.
In that case we should probably look at a way of distinguishing between user funds on B3 and user funds in Carbon strategies.
Either way, we have to do something, staying passive on deficit management doesn’t really seem to help.
1 Like
Can you explain this part in more detail please?
Every pool can theoretically be recovered over time - if/when Carbon gets more traction, it will generate more fees and these can at some point be used in a different ways to reduce the deficit if the DAO chooses to do so. It’s way too early to judge - it has only been running for a few months in a bear market, we should give it more chance (I’m personally very optimistic about Carbon btw - tons of positive feedback so far).
I also don’t really see the benefit of reducing trading liquidity - might as well just shut down the pools completely as by reducing the trading liquidity we would basically make the deficit permanent, so reducing it to almost nothing doesn’t really have any benefit either way.
As to moving off-curve liquidity - I’m strongly against - from my perspective it’s really chaotic and creates multiple problems in multiple domains. Imagine we do something like that and some or all of these funds get lost due to a security risk or arbs/sandwich attack on the way etc. - this is way more than the DAO should ever do. If users want to move their funds to Carbon, they can do that today, their deficit will become permanent anyway.
3 Likes
Trading Limit will be reduced to {x# bnTKN} Vote Yes - Keep my TKN exposed to IL in v3 CP-AMM pool without ILP enabled
{x # bnTKN} Vote No | Abstain | no show - Move my underlying TKN to SFL removed from Deficit Reduction by BNT price outpace, but not exposed to IL/rebalance either
How are you getting each LP’s consent?
Let them vote for it.
Make a snapshot using Snapshot for example of their bnTKN and have them decide that way.
Shouldn’t be too hard I suppose.
If that’s not possible we’ll find another way, maybe a smart contract where they can deposit their bnTKN?
Either way, what seems most logical is them using their bnTKN.